On 2/24/20 3:13 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> 
> 
> On 20.02.20 13:56, Janosch Frank wrote:
>> When a guest has saved a ipib of type 5 and calls diagnose308 with
>> subcode 10, we have to setup the protected processing environment via
>> Ultravisor calls. The calls are done by KVM and are exposed via an
>> API.
>>
>> The following steps are necessary:
>> 1. Create a VM (register it with the Ultravisor)
>> 2. Create secure CPUs for all of our current cpus
> 
> maybe rephrase that to reflect the enable/disable change?

Yep

> 
>> 3. Forward the secure header to the Ultravisor (has all information on
>> how to decrypt the image and VM information)
>> 4. Protect image pages from the host and decrypt them
>> 5. Verify the image integrity
>>
>> Only after step 5 a protected VM is allowed to run.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> [Changes
>> to machine]
> 
> [...]
> 
>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/pv.c b/hw/s390x/pv.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000000..8ae20f31c1
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/hw/s390x/pv.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
>> +/*
>> + * Secure execution functions
>> + *
>> + * Copyright IBM Corp. 2020
>> + * Author(s):
>> + *  Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>> + *
>> + * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or (at
>> + * your option) any later version. See the COPYING file in the top-level
>> + * directory.
>> + */
>> +#include "qemu/osdep.h"
>> +#include <sys/ioctl.h>
>> +
>> +#include <linux/kvm.h>
>> +
>> +#include "qemu/error-report.h"
>> +#include "sysemu/kvm.h"
>> +#include "pv.h"
>> +
>> +const char *cmd_names[] = {
>> +    "VM_CREATE",
>> +    "VM_DESTROY",
> 
> ENABLE/DISABLE?

Ack.

> 
>> +    "VM_SET_SEC_PARAMS",
>> +    "VM_UNPACK",
>> +    "VM_VERIFY",
>> +    "VM_PREP_RESET",
>> +    "VM_UNSHARE_ALL",
>> +    NULL
>> +};
> 
> Wild idea. Not sure if this is acceptable in QEMU.
> 
> These strings are only for the error_report, no?
> Could we use a MACRO that uses this a as a string and b as the inter value?
> 
> -static int s390_pv_cmd(uint32_t cmd, void *data)
> +#define S390_PV_CMD(cmd, data) s390_pv_cmd(cmd, #cmd, data)
> +static int s390_pv_cmd(uint32_t cmd, const char *name, void *data)
> 
> 
> and then replace all calls with S390_PV_CMD. (Of course also change the
> error report to use name).
> 
>> +
>> +static int s390_pv_cmd(uint32_t cmd, void *data)
>> +{
>> +    int rc;
>> +    struct kvm_pv_cmd pv_cmd = {
>> +        .cmd = cmd,
>> +        .data = (uint64_t)data,
>> +    };
>> +
>> +    rc = kvm_vm_ioctl(kvm_state, KVM_S390_PV_COMMAND, &pv_cmd);
>> +    if (rc) {
>> +        error_report("KVM PV command %d (%s) failed: header rc %x rrc %x "
>> +                     "IOCTL rc: %d", cmd, cmd_names[cmd], pv_cmd.rc, pv_cmd.rrc,
>> +                     rc);
>> +    }
>> +    return rc;
>> +}
> [...]
> 
> Maybe also change the subject. We do more than just unpack.
> 

The name is not about unpack, it's about the unpack facility